For advertisement



hota - a tough call

The other day I mentioned that I have no objection for not opting out of Hota and they can have my organs. But Hota, the Human Organ Transplant Act was put to the test in Sim Tee Hua's case a few day's back. He was brain dead and the hospital wanted to harvest his organs. But the family pleaded for two extensions, hoping for a miracle. The first request was approved but the second turned down as doctors feared further delay would make the organs unusable. This is a tough call on everyone, the families and the doctors. And critics and moralists can argue until the cow comes home on the rights of the doctors and the rights of the deceased. I would not want to be put in such a situation.


Matilah_Singapura said...

The deceased have no rights. Once a human being dies, the physical body is no longer considered a living human. In fact, the physical body is simply a piece of organic matter in varying states of decay.

Rights — which are all based on PRIVATE PROERTY — i.e. SELF - ownership — only apply to LIVING humans. When one is deceased, the "self" no longer exists, and therefore no concept of "self-ownership" is possible.

In almost every culture there is an irrational attachment to the physical body, and even at funerals I've noticed that they refer to the corpse as if he/she was still "human". The only "humanness" about a corpse is that is once was a living human.

The right to privacy also vanishes after death. That is why after people die, all the private stuff and skeletons from the closet can be made public, and no one can sue for LIBEL or SLANDER.

HOWEVER when you are alive as a fully-functioning human you do have (natural) rights. It is when you are ALIVE that one makes wills, and instructions for what to do with one's corpse after death.

You appoint an agent or agents (lawyer, executor of estate etc.) to execute the details of your will or instructions, thus it becomes a matter of contract. Once you die, the contract you struck when you were alive still applies, and there is a justice system (haha) there to ensure that the laws (contract law) are upheld.

One may also make living wills, or other instructions to be carried out in situations where death is the only option — for e.g. to not resuscitate (DNR — Do Not Resuscitate) or to turn off life-support.

I think organ donorship should be a private and personal matter. The same shit happens here: when the state lays claim to the deceased's body and havests organs, the idea of "charity" fucks right out the window.

State welfare is a bad bad thing. Individual charity and benevolence is a darn good thing.

WHY? Because State "welfare" relies on the application of FORCE and usurps the power of choice in individuals. Private welfare relies solely on individual choice and is 100% voluntary.

I have opted out of every organ donor program everywhere I go and given specific instructions to my family on what to do if I die suddenly. I want my corpse intact and if the state wants any organs they can have my scrotum and my anus — that's it. I am not going to be used as a farm animal to be harvested by the motherfuckers in the state.

However, if any friend or family needs blood, I am the first to put up my hand. My nephew some years ago was very sick and possibly needed bone marrow transplant. I was the FIRST to volunteer as a donor. If any of the people in my life need a kidney or a part of my liver, I will pack a bag and head to the hospital in a heartbeat. BUT I WILL NEVER allow anyone to TAKE what I do not GIVE voluntarily.

Having a "need" doesn't automatically give anyone or any group the RIGHT to take by force from the person who has the resource to fulfill that "need".

Otherwise we could just say: "I need a BMW", and then proceed to rob the first BMW owner that comes along of his car.

Taking something which belongs to someone else without the owners consent is THEFT. Taking by force is called ARMED ROBBERY and they are both illegal and immoral.

redbean said...

this particular case the guy did not opt out. and there is a high probability that many people were not aware of this opt in and opt out stuff though it is in the papers. but the assumption is that once in the papers, it is the people's fault if they did not know.

the papers reported how the families went down on their knees to beg the doctors to delay the operation. here, like you say, the body belongs to the state. true? i thought the body still belongs to the family with all its organs. the hospital can only claim the organs because of the not opting out clause.

the other issue is this medical condition known as clinical dead. i am in no position to comment on what it means. doctors know best.

for those who believe that medical science still is not able to explain all the medical conditions and about life, they would still believe that as long as there is some signs of life, like a warm body and breathing, there is a possibility that life may return.

this is a young an healthy man. and the family members fought with the hospital staff to hold back the operation.

i am not taking sides here as i am no wiser as to what is right or best. but one day this issue is going to explode and the hospital could be burn down if the family members are violent enough.

don't ask me for solution on this.

Matilah_Singapura said...

> [L]ike you say, the body belongs to the state. true? i thought the body still belongs to the family with all its organs. <

Morally, self-ownership is still in effect when the human is still living. After he dies, the "logical" assumption is that his next-of-kin "owns" the deceased physical body. After all, it is the family who decides how to dispose of the remains, unless that was decided by the human when he was still living, and expressed explicitly.

However, the state has its "agents" who may "persuade" the family to release the deceased for organ harvesting.

I have a solution for this: the state should not be in the health care area, from the beginning. This is what happens when there is government interference. It's starts of with "a little bit" and people appreciate the immediate benefits, but at WHAT long-term cost?

In certain narrow contexts the state does own all humans in the territory administered by the state:

1 It is illegal to put certain substances into your body.

2 It is illegal to self-terminate your physical existence.

3 The state conscripts abled males for National Service, and makes it illegal to disobey. This of course is a misnomer. The underlying assumption in "service" is that it is done voluntarily. If service is not voluntary and is forced, it is no longer service — it is slavery.

4 It is illegal to use you lungs, vocal chords and mouth (stuff that you own) to make certain noises about certain ideas — ideas relating to politics, race and religion.

5 It is illegal to experience certain types of publication: e.g. pornography

... etc. etc.

redbean said...

i was pondering over the idea of a will to sell of my organs at death, or will them to my family to sell them as a profit.

if i do that before i die, think it should be legally binding.

Anonymous said...

Hello to all, the contents existing at this web site are truly awesome for people knowledge, well, keep up the nice
work fellows.

Also visit my blog post ... limos

Anonymous said...

I've been exploring for a little for any high quality articles or blog posts in this sort of space . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this site. Studying this information So i am satisfied to exhibit that I have an incredibly just right uncanny feeling I found out exactly what I needed. I so much certainly will make sure to don?t overlook this web site and provides it a look on a relentless basis.

Look into my web blog :: suburb